Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Taxpayers Want Birthers to Pay the Costs of Defending Against Their Lawsuits
In a new White House petition, the people demand, “Mandate the AG to seek sanctions, costs, and attorneys’ fees to recover taxpayer funds used to defend birther lawsuits.” The American taxpayers want to be reimbursed for the costs of defending against the birthers frivolous lawsuits.
The petition reads:
“Mandate the AG to seek sanctions, costs, and attorneys’ fees to recover taxpayer funds used to defend birther lawsuits.
Hundreds of repetitious and frivolous lawsuits have been filed challenging President Obama’s status as a natural born citizen. These lawsuits have clogged up the courts and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in court costs and attorneys’ fees.
We, the taxpayers, respectfully petition for an Executive Order or directive to the Attorney General to seek to recover taxpayer funds expended in defending frivolous Birther lawsuits by requesting sanctions, costs, and attorneys’ fees in each and every pending or future case.”
The petition was started yesterday, on the 14th, and so far, they have 222 signatures. They need 24,778 more.
The birthers have filed too many state and federal lawsuits to list, from keeping Obama off the ballot to suggesting that Obama can’t order the troops to war.
Ironically, the birthers have another concpiracy theory going that Obama has spent so much money defending against their lawsuits because they are true. They base this claim on the money Obama paid to his 2008 campaign lawyer, so you can see how far out of the realm of reality these folks operate.
The head of the Alabama Democratic Party got so sick of the birther nonesense that he threatened that he might start to demanding legal fees after he wrapped up one case only to be sued again within two hours for the exact same birther claim:
“Within less than two hours AFTER the Jefferson County Circuit Court dismissed the ‘birther’ lawsuit filed against me, I have been sued AGAIN by another person in Jefferson County claiming the same thing,” Kennedy wrote on his Facebook wall. “Talk about clogging up the court system….”
Kennedy wrote that he would ask for legal fees when he opposes the next round of birther suits, and in a later post called on Republicans “to put a stop to this since they are all over Democrats about filing frivolous lawsuits!”
One might think that the birthers, since they are a subset of alleged conservatives, would want to repay these costs since they are allegedly against any debt, also against frivolous lawsuits and also against free loaders sucking up government welfare (the patience of the courts notwithstanding, apparently).
This one is a win. Plus, if it does get enough signatures, imagine how hilarious the White House’s response will be, based on their Death Star rebuttal.
Update: Petitions now require 100,000 signatures to qualify for a response, as too many petitions were qualifying at 25,000.
Image: Carlson
Related Posts :
American taxpayers are getting their wish to have birthers forced to pay for their frivolous delusions. ...
The birther movement is back with a new conspiracy that states not only was Barack Obama not born in Ameri ...
"I called you to repair my ceiling fan; while you were working you cracked my glass showpiece… I’ll see ...
To the surprise of no one, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wal-Mart in a preliminary stage of its ma ...
Since the Obama's birth certificate is real, birthers are now claiming that his Social Security number i ...
36 Responses to Taxpayers Want Birthers to Pay the Costs of Defending Against Their Lawsuits
Public Service Advertisements
Terri
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 5:32 pm
We want our money back!
majii
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 5:56 pm
I have to give it to them, they’re relentless, but they’re not very smart because they keep filing the same lawsuits and getting the same results. According to HuffPo, Oily Taitz has filed another lawsuit against the president, claiming that he used fraudulent IDs to get the ability to run for POTUS. She also plans to protest at his inauguration. She says she’ll protest in front of the WH on January 20 and at the inauguration on the 21st. I guess it hasn’t occurred to her that there will be thousands at the inauguration on the 21st and she likely won’t get the attention she so desperately craves. Many attending the event will definitely give her the “side eye” and wonder why she isn’t a resident in the nearest mental illness treatment facility.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 6:12 pm
I hope she chalks the sidewalk
djchefron
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 8:22 pm
OK orally you planned on protesting in front of the White house in front of 10′s of thousands of the President supporters,the secret service and before I forget the middle of Chocalate City?Got you.BTW Good luck
mjh
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 1:39 am
She says she’ll protest in front of the WH on January 20 and at the inauguration on the 21st. I guess it hasn’t occurred to her that there will be thousands at the inauguration on the 21st and she likely won’t get the attention she so desperately craves.
If Oily gets out of hand, the Secret Service will give her all the attention she could ever want . . .
.
Reynardine
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 6:13 pm
Signed.
SinghX
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 7:16 pm
“…Hundreds of repetitious and frivolous lawsuits have been filed challenging President Obama’s status as a natural born citizen. These lawsuits have clogged up the courts and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in court costs and attorneys’ fees.”
Thees birthers (I refuse to use a capital letter giving them privilege of title) are starting to sound more and more like some kind of off-shoot group of infamous “Sovereigns Movement”. They too play by their own rules as “free men” along with their own conspiracies whereby they intentionally clog the legal system with false suits and intimidation.
Sovereigns have this conspiracy, the mother of all theories, that begins with the moment a child is given a name on a birth certificates…it’s extremely convoluted and a long story, but, the similarities in the sovereign’s paranoia, delusional non-reality mindset and birthers make you wonder…
Heaven help us if they become joined at the hip openly in support of one another.
David Farrar
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 7:45 pm
@majii,
Actually, there has just been a new $50 million federal lawsuit filed in the 7th circuit against Barack Hussein Obama II, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., Martin Dempsey, Eric Holder and Hillary Rodham Clinton in a complaint and petition for Emergency Injunction, Declaratory Relief, Mandamus, and Quo Warranto.
To go www.jedipauly.com/ for more details.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 7:56 pm
Now that is some hilarious stuff!
My fellow American Patriots? LOL man thats rich. The person writing that is hardly apatriot
Twinx
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 8:13 pm
David Farrar, as you are one of the loser birthers who keeps bringing your loser birther cases, it amuses me no end to see you trolling here.
How many cases have you lost so far?
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 8:18 pm
Did you read that web page? That was hilarious!
Elizabeth 44
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 9:13 pm
I was tempted to see how many of us could insult him so we could add our names to his lawsuit. We could get him suing thousands of us because we think he is less than rational.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 9:21 pm
Rational doesnt occur in his world
a 50 million dollar lawsuit? In the worlds of Dr Evils #2, thats a few pennies
Twinx
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 10:04 pm
Shiva, read the suit at the page Farrar links to?
According to this guy Guthrie ‘females’ can’t pass on citizenship to US born children, he compares himself and other irthers to enslaved African Americans and ‘jews’ (his emphasis) in the Holocaust…he’s asking for $50 million compensatory damages for being ‘terrorized’ (or something), he’s butt-hurt for being called a birther…it just goes on and on.
e says he’s too poor to pay for the costs of his suit, and admits he’s going to appeal it all the way to SCOTUS.
A classic example of why everyone should sign the petition. and tweet the hell out of this and similar articles covering it.
petitions.whitehouse.gov/...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 10:07 pm
Yeah I scanned it. Had a laughing fit.
I agree on the petition and just signed it
David Farrar
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 10:57 pm
Actually, in de Vattel’s world, the mother is a kind of universal citizen, able to produce citizens who are citizens under the father’s allegiance. It’s all there in PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS
ex animo
davidfarrar
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 11:18 pm
Laws of nature = conservatives trying to be hippys.
Laws of nature are a pipe dream, someone always rises to the ranks of dictator when there are no rules.
David Farrar
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 11:20 pm
Here is a question for all of you here: Do you believe U.S. citizenship at birth should depend on ‘place of birth’ or ‘inheritance’?
I would venture to say 99.9% here would say ‘place of birth’. But ‘place of birth’ citizenship is an attribute of a monarchical system of government that runs counter to the spirit of the revolution, wherein Lockean consent-base citizenship is ‘inherited’ under the cloak of allegiance of the father.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 11:31 pm
All it takes is one parent being American. The birther bullshit is just that. His mother was American, he was born in America. Now pipe your bs someplace else. You are making a joke of yourself.
mjh
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 1:52 am
@David Far-gone
But ‘place of birth’ citizenship is an attribute of a monarchical system of government that runs counter to the spirit of the revolution . . .
Again,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. — US Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section I
It’s not a “product of a monarchical system of government — it’s a product of the US Constitution you rightwingnut afterbirthers claim to love so much, but apparently never read . . .
.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 9:15 am
The constitution no longer has meaning for David. He lives under Hippy rules now
SinghX
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 6:43 am
See?!!
I told’ya the paid trolls have found the site!
You’re gonna’ be busy, Shiva… saddle up Ganesha and get those 8 limbs a’swingin’ (a John Wayne hat & 6 shooter would be a nice touch)!
Jemima jones
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 10:35 pm
Bring it on, we,ll see about that.
mjh
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 1:44 am
” . . . because both the place of birth of the offspring and the political condition of the mother are irrelevant in determining natural born Citizen status.”
I didn’t have to go far to come to the first line of bullshit on that page — and I stopped right there.
.
David Farrar
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 11:31 pm
@Shiva,
All law of nature are self-evident…that’s what makes them laws of nature. Let me give you an example:
Let’s go back before 1776. Suppose we take two North American Indian tribes, let’s say the Iroquois and the Sioux. Now let’s say a man from the Iroquois tribe and his wife, who happens to be from the Cherokee tribe and pregnant, are traveling across Sioux territory and they stop and camp on Sioux territory for the night. During the night the Cherokee mother gives birth to a child on Sioux territory.
Q. Does that make the child Sioux, Cherokee, or Iroquois?
A. De Vattel’s Law of Nations tells us the child, by the Natural Right of Inheritance, is a member of the Iroquois tribe, the tribe of the father.
The fact that the child was born on Sioux territory gives the Sioux the right to decide if they want to adopt the child and make him/er Sioux or not. They might instead even kill the entire Iroquois family for trespassing. The option is theirs (by plenary authority of government, not by natural law).
It is the same with every nation, including the U.S. This is why de Vattel says that the soil is just the place of birth and not the country that one is from, which goes by the father because it is determined as a function of natural laws, not legal privileges.
This is exactly what the qualifier in ‘natural’ born Citizen means…a citizen by natural law, not by legal privileges or any other plenary authority of government.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 11:42 pm
The laws of nature are nice to dream about. But we live in a land of laws. I could care less who gives you the BS about the father being the only ranking family member. The laws of nature do not prevail here, the laws at the time of Obamas birth fully indicate he is American. Now take your indian bs and you birther bs and hit the road
Your story is totally meaningless and would be tossed from a court of law in seconds.
David Farrar
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 12:19 am
In a way, this issue has nothing to do with Obama, or the color of his skin. In fact, Obama wasn’t the only 2008 presidential candidate sued in federal court over his Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen qualifications. Obama wasn’t even the first 2008 presidential candidate sued in federal court over his Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen qualifications. Those dubious honors went to John McCain.
The issue of what is the true American birthright transcends presidential politics, both present and future. I can assure you, us Birthers, we are facing just as much wrath from the Republican leadership over this issue because it also disqualifies Sen. Rubio of Florida, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Piyush “Bobby” Jindal, Governor of Louisiana, Susana Martinez of New Mexico, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina.
The laws of nature are what they are. They are self-evident truths that are universally accepted…and, yes, even by this country, by treaty.
When Congress passed the Married Women’s Act of 1922; which allowed allegiance to follow the mother, now required both parents be U.S. Citizens prior to their child’s birth, to avoid dual allegiances at birth.
If you don’t believe in something I am saying, remember, I am relying on natural law, which is based on self-evident truths.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 12:32 am
“If you don’t believe in something I am saying, remember, I am relying on natural law, which is based on self-evident truths.”
No, they are only self evident to you and a few people with an agenda, albeit a poor one, against Obama and those who are into the 2nd amendment.
Natural law is meaningless in the US. It is meaningless in Court
If any of the people you mentioned above are born in the US they are natural born citizens. Period. No matter what nationality their parents were.
The laws at the time of Obama’s birth were such that he is American on the basis of his mother being American. The Supreme Court laughed your claim off on Jun 11, 2012.
This is about Obama. Natural law is only self evident to those who want to beleive it. And it doesnt pass the smell test in court.
Good night.
The Fourteenth Amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Since Hawaii is part of the United States, even if Barack Obama’s parents were both non-U.S. citizens who hadn’t even set foot in the country until just before he was born, he’d still qualify as a natural-born citizen.
mjh
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 2:25 am
“If you don’t believe in something I am saying, remember, I am relying on natural law . . .”
. . . And, therein lies the difference between you and the sane: you rely on some nebulous concept called “natural law” — we rely on THE US CONSTITUTION.
And now, I’d like to leave you with this last thought {don’t strain yourself}:
You and your fellow afterbirthers insist that Barack Obama is not a citizen, and is therefore ineligible to be President, because he had one immigrant parent.
Would it interest you to know that FIVE previous US Presidents had at least one immigrant parent — and another one had two? They are
- Thomas Jefferson (English Mother)
- James Buchanan (Irish Father)
- Chester A. Arthur (Irish Father)
- Woodrow Wilson (English Mother)
- Herbert Hoover (Canadian Mother)
- Andrew Jackson (both parents Irish)
Did you afterbirthers protest as loudly about either their citizenship or their eligibility to serve as US President?
Didn’t think so. Now, kindly STFU AND GO AWAY.
.
SinghX
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 6:57 am
Hey man…you are far-out! I had no freakin’ idea that birthers were into the Natural Law Party! Like, wow, maaan!
“…According to the Maharishi, the Natural Law Party (NLP) was first founded in the United Kingdom in March 1992…The American branch of the party was founded later that year in Fairfield, Iowa U.S.A. by educators, business leaders, lawyers and other supporters of the Transcendental Meditation movement…
The party had its foundation in the principles of Transcendental Meditation and was committed to “prevention oriented government and conflict free politics” through holistic health programs and the practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique.
In Scotland and Wales, party advertisements proclaimed that “natural law which silently governs the whole universe in perfect order and without a problem.”…They also supported free college education and the use of the Transcendental Meditation technique in the school system…
In the UK, NLP candidate Geoffry Clements advocated the use of Transcendental Meditation and the TM-Sidhi program’s yogic flying practice to reduce crime and war deaths. In the U.S.A. its platform included clean energy, labeling of genetically modified foods, a ban on the construction of nuclear energy plants, and an end to political action committee…”
Yeah…I see where you’re coming from…pass the pipe to Orliy, she’s looking bummed out again.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 9:13 am
Every I hate Obama and gun nut is suddenly trying their hardest to become hippys and live under natural law. Its hilarious
SinghX
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 9:49 am
Yeah, hippies…in their clean, pressed jeans and designer dress shirts; ever notice how during the election season the “hippies” would come on Stewart or Colbert in their pressed jeans and a dress shirt as a way to impress those modern “youngsters”? (or the lingo, hipsters).
These are 2nd-gen Archie Bunker fake Moral Majority.
They so missed the curve, the zeitgeist of the late 60′s-early 70′s that they are just NOW getting that groovy “vibe”…it’s sort of like a reach around, only they are still going in the other direction.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 9:55 am
Thats true, the only reason I mention hippys is all of a sudden they do not want to live within society’s laws. They must have new laws, the same as we wanted in the 70′s. This natural law thing will last 5 minutes on the docket then thrown out.
djchefron
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 2:36 pm
img14.imageshack.us/img14...
mjh
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 1:35 am
Taxpayers Want Birthers to Pay the Costs of Defending Against Their Lawsuits
The only response I have to this is the same one shown in the lead photo of President Obama in the thread, “Boehner and House Republicans Bumble Right Into Obama’s Debt Ceiling Trap” . . .
.
Cc
Jan. 16th, 2013 at 9:26 pm
I totally agree – Pay up – damages included!